Death might be preferable to life without parole in the federal Supermax prison. The Supermax is reserved for the worst of the worst and features windowless all-concrete cells with concrete bunks and a concrete shower-toilet. Each inmate is allowed 1 hour of solitary exercise a day. Meals are delivered through a slot. All cells are video-monitored 24/7. The total lack of human contact and visual stimulus should quickly lead to insanity in all but the strongest.Death would be more merciful. However it may be that crimes like 9/11 cry out for an exemplary punishment.

Yes they should be punished, not sure how it will go with how its being handled. I fully understand the anger of the people, who'd much rather see the worms dealt with by a military tribunal.

I know if this guy gets off because of some BS, hope not.. Though if such a thing happened, we'll only be setting ourselves up for another tragedy down the road. These acts for war were treated as criminal acts before, and weren't taken too seriously, and 9/11 was the result of it... We'll see.

Mikeylikesit saidunfortunately because of Osama they are being tried in a civil court system...Watch them get off because not enough evidence. Military tribunal would have been much better.....

They are being tried in civilian court because the administration is sure they will be convicted. Now, the dozens of other poor souls who are being put through the ringer of military tribunals? Well, they will just have to float through that system of indefinite detention until they die in their little cells.

Munching Zombie makes an excellent point. The reason these five, and no others, are being tried in real courts (not Bush/Obama's bogus kangaroo courts) is that they are sure they will win convictions. This double standard is a clear affront to constitutional principles and rule of law. If those in Guantanamo are truly guilty of what they are accused of, give them a real trial using legitimate (read: non-torture induced) evidence. Don't give them the level of process that will reach the desired outcome. That's just a farce.

As to the question, I never think that the death penalty is justified. In this case it would be particularly inappropriate since martyrhood is what they likely are seeking.

Also, those objecting to these trials seem to forget (or willfully ignore) that the 1993 WTC bombers were tried and convicted in real courts, as were other terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczinski.

MunchingZombie said They are being tried in civilian court because the administration is sure they will be convicted.

The defense will argue that the evidence against them must be suppressed because it was obtained by duress. If ordinary criminal-law rules are followed they are correct and suppression must be granted. Unless the trial judge invents some special exception to the exclusionary rule there is a real possibility of acquittal. The public would never tolerate that and the administration knows it, so there will be huge pressure on the judge to do whatever it takes. That is an example of why lawyers say "Hard cases make bad law." The NYT coverage admits this possibility but glosses over it because of the NYT's ardent political agenda.

Holder is probably counting on KSM to turn his trial into a forum for jihadist ranting and if so the in-court confession would solve the problem. But what if KSM opts not to testify?

After the horror of 9/11, maybe some poeple will get satisfaction and a sense of closure by killing him. But for me it would be a shallow justice.....more death and killing would be pointless...........enough already.

I would be in favor of making them rot somewhere and suffer for the rest of their lives.

HUGE supporter of the death penalty. But in the case of these religious fools, putting them to death would most likely give them what they want. Let them live out their lives in COMPLETE isolation. No human contact. When they eventually die, simply cremate the remains and deposit it into the trash bin.Not trying to be flip here at all. Cheers,Keith

don't give them the pleasure of what they want --- martyrdom---- a life sentence serves a better purpose. But in the end, there really isn't a punishment severe enough to match what they did and their utter disdain for the life of innocent victims.

Mikeylikesit saidunfortunately because of Osama they are being tried in a civil court system...Watch them get off because not enough evidence. Military tribunal would have been much better.....

So, it seems that you are admitting that military trials are unfair and that any defendant who is charged, will be found guilty, no matter what.If you were charged with a crime, and there was insufficient evidence, would you think it was unfair that you were acquitted ?

Don't lose any sleep over this trial in NYC. Security will be increased a thousand fold.A jury of NEW YORK CITY residents will most definitely seek revenge against these men, and convict them on all counts, then sentence them to death, regardless of the evidence.

I'm not suggesting that they are not guilty.I'm merely saying that all Americans should be proud that our government has chosen to do the right thing, and that is to follow our laws and give these men a fair trial in a civilian court (military trials are for people in the military). One way or another, they will be found guilty, and they will never know another day of freedom.

southbeach1500 saidSeems a bit unfair though, doesn't it? The people accused of bombing the USS Cole have to go through a military trial, and these people accused of the 9-11 plot have to go through a civil court trial.

Besides "the administration knows they will be convicted, that's why they are getting a civil court trial" what constitutional and/or legal justification can there be for the different treatment?

What is unfair is that we try these people by military tribunal at all. We have a constitution and a set of laws that is perfectly adequate for dealing with these criminals. Why are these cases so special that the law is unable to deal with them?

Glenn Greenwald is a lot smarter and a better writer than I am so I will let his pithy paragraph do the work

GlennPeople in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system. They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice. Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings. The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London. Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali. India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents. In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes.